Half DCV

[steph]

When a DCV is Halved like when a character is Stun. If the DCV is 7 you round down or up? 3,5 = 3 or 4 ?

 

Steph

[Surrealone]

Round in the player's favour.

[Lucius]

 

I could swear that there used to be an explicit rule to round in the defender's favor, but I can't find it in the current edition.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Maybe the palindromedary ate it

[Netzilla]

I could swear that there used to be an explicit rule to round in the defender's favor, but I can't find it in the current edition. Lucius Alexander Maybe the palindromedary ate it

Rounding .5 in the player's favor goes back to 3e at least (I don't have any 1e or 2e books to check). 

 

To the OP, the current wording of the rule can be found in Champions Complete, pg 10, under ROUND-OFFS AND MINIMUM COST (should be under a similar heading for Fantasy Hero Complete and Hero System 6e)..

[Ninja-Bear]

I could swear that there used to be an explicit rule to round in the defender's favor, but I can't find it in the current edition.Lucius AlexanderMaybe the palindromedary ate it

I know its in there. To pharase .1-.4 round down. .-.9 round up .5 round to Heroe's favor.

[Ninja-Bear]

Found it CC pg. 10 Titled Round offs.

[Cantriped]

0.1 to 0.4 rounds down. 0.5 rounds in the ​character's​ favor. 0.6 to 0.9 rounds up.

I specify character instead of player because if a PC reduces an NPC (with 3 DCV) to 1/2 DCV then it should round up to 2, not down to 1. That way rounding is always consistent regardless of who hits who with what.  

[Surrealone]

We're picking nits, again...

[Tasha]

I always round 0.5 in the player's favor. It's been a core rule of Champions since 2nd edition at least (pretty sure it was in 1st edition too).

[Hugh Neilson]

0.1 to 0.4 rounds down. 0.5 rounds in the ​character's​ favor. 0.6 to 0.9 rounds up.

I specify character instead of player because if a PC reduces an NPC (with 3 DCV) to 1/2 DCV then it should round up to 2, not down to 1. That way rounding is always consistent regardless of who hits who with what.

 

 

We're picking nits, again...

 

 

I always round 0.5 in the player's favor. It's been a core rule of Champions since 2nd edition at least (pretty sure it was in 1st edition too).

I side with Cantriped on this. It's picking nits until we have one PC attack another PC, for whatever reason. Then we need to determine whether that halving rounds in favour of the defending PC or the attacking PC.

[Lucius]

Round in the player's favour.

Which means if an NPC with DCV 7 who is an ally of the player characters gets stunned, their DCV is 4; if the NPC is an opponent with a DCV of 7, their DCV is now 3. What if it's an ally who is mind controlled by an opponent?

 

0.1 to 0.4 rounds down. 0.5 rounds in the ​character's​ favor. 0.6 to 0.9 rounds up.

I specify character instead of player because if a PC reduces an NPC (with 3 DCV) to 1/2 DCV then it should round up to 2, not down to 1. That way rounding is always consistent regardless of who hits who with what.

We're picking nits, again...

If when you say "player" you mean to include the one running the game, implying that essentially all characters are under the same rules, then yes, it's a "nit" to distinguish between the words "player" and "character." But the word "player" is commonly used in a more restricted sense as excluding that person, a difference in interpretation that leads to a difference in the character's DCV which can lead to the difference between being hit and being missed. Cantriped's formulation avoids that possible ambiguity.

 

Rounding .5 in the player's favor goes back to 3e at least (I don't have any 1e or 2e books to check). 

 

To the OP, the current wording of the rule can be found in Champions Complete, pg 10, under ROUND-OFFS AND MINIMUM COST (should be under a similar heading for Fantasy Hero Complete and Hero System 6e)..

I found something like this on p 12 of Vol. 1, but it specifically says "when you calculate the cost of something." We're not talking here about calculating the cost of anything.

 

I can tell you that when DCV is halved I always round up, for as long as I can remember, and I don't know of anyone who does otherwise unless some of you are about to tell me that you do. I could be wrong but I think those of you saying "round in the PLAYER'S favor" really mean "round in the CHARACTER'S favor" and will not actually decide that a stunned character's DCV rounds up or down depending on which side of the fight they're on.

 

For one thing, what do you do then if there is a combat BETWEEN player characters? Rounding in one player's favor would mean not rounding in the other's favor.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

In favor of palindromedaries.

[Hugh Neilson]

If a character already has a negative OCV and suffers a further penalty that would halve his OCV, halve the negative OCV and apply that half amount to reduce the OCV further; normal rounding rules apply. For example, if a character has OCV -4, halving reduces it to -6 (-4 plus half of -4, or -2). If he has OCV -3, halving reduces it to -4.

This suggests to me, at least, rounding is in favour of the character by "normal rounding rules".

 

In Damage Adding, there is a reference to normal rounding NOT applying in that you need a full 5 STR above the STR min, or a full 10 meters of movement to increase damage from a Move By.

 

Thinking on it, if my adversaries had to round up, they would have less points to spend, and that would be to my advantage.

 

On p 12 of V1, while the heading is "Character Points and Rounding", examples include rounding END costs down and rounding DEX rolls up (not sure how one gets a 0.5 there, though).

 

Funny how this is never discussed in the context of 1/2 DCV, though - the only place it shows up, the example has a base DCV of 8. I've never seen anyone round down when DCV is halved.

[Netzilla]

In CC it does not restrict this rule to costs and specifies that this is meant to favor the PC.

 

 

 

ROUND-OFFS AND MINIMUM COST
Whenever something in the rules requires multiplication or division, handle round-offs as follows: results ending in .1 to .4 round down to the next whole number, results ending in .6 to .9 round up to the next whole number, and results ending in .5 round up or down, whichever is to the advantage of the Player Character. For example, when calculating the cost of a Power, it’s to the character’s advantage if the Power costs fewer CP, so a .5 in a cost would round down; if a Combat Maneuver halves a character’s DCV, it’s to the character’s advantage for his DCV to be as high as possible, so a .5 in that calculation would round up.

 

Regardless of the rounding rules, anything not covered under What Not To Spend CP On costs a minimum of 1 point, even if the final cost is 0.4 or less.

 

 

 

This matches the way every group I've played with since 3e has handled it.

 

 

 

Throughout Champions a number of forumulas are used as part of the game system.  Mostly, these forumulas are simple multiplication or division.  Often, when using these formulas the numbers don't come out evenly7.  In the case of a number with a fractional remainder, always round to the nearest whole number.  When the fractional remainder is exactly one half, the number should be rounded in the hero's favor, either up or down.

 

 

 

Interesting thing about the 3e wording is that if the players are playing villains, the rounding won't work in their favor.  I'm guessing the authors weren't really thinking about that.

 

In any case, in the rare instances of PC vs PC combat, we did round in the defender';s favor because that's the standard in quite a few game systems.

[Greywind]

 

Interesting thing about the 3e wording is that if the players are playing villains, the rounding won't work in their favor.  I'm guessing the authors weren't really thinking about that.

 

 

"Champions" "Super-hero Role-Playing"

 

Not "Villainy"

[Hugh Neilson]

In CC it does not restrict this rule to costs and specifies that this is meant to favor the PC.

 

The DCV reference is great. It's interesting that cost rounds in favour of the "player character" but DCV in favour of the "character". As has been noted above, rounding up for allies and down for adversaries favours the player characters. I suspect the term "Hero" was often used as meaning "character" in many editions.

[Ninja-Bear]

Fwiw, I just round up. Heroes, villains, npcs, everyone.

[bigdamnhero]

I round in the character's favor, whether PC or NPC. It makes little sense otherwise: if I'm creating an NPC that could be either an enemy or an ally of the PCs depending on how they approach him, am I supposed to create two versions: one where I round all the costs down (which would be in the players' favor if he's an ally) and one where I round them up (which would be in the players' favor if he's an enemy)? And yes, obviously I'm being absurd - kindof the point.

 

I did find the verbiage in 4ed (the generic rules, not the BBB), and it does say character's favor, not player character's favor.

 

What's weird is that I've been playing this game for 25 years and always rounded 1/2 DCV up and could've sworn that was specifically stated in the rules, but now I can't find it anywhere!

[Cantriped]

I imagine that there is at least one Example given where a character does something that reduces them to Half DCV, and the example notes their DCV before and after.

[Tasha]

I don't allow PvP in my games, so rounding in the Player's favor works well.

[Ninja-Bear]

Cantriped In older editions Im sure it does.

[Lucius]

I don't allow PvP in my games, so rounding in the Player's favor works well.

So if an opponent with a DCV of 7 gets stunned, their DCV is 3?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Inquiring palindromedaries want to know

[Hugh Neilson]

Even with "no PVP allowed", I dislike the PC with DCV 7 having a 4 DCV if stunned while the adversary gets a DCV of 3.

 

Does that mean if, while he is Stunned, he is Mind Controlled to fight for the PC's, he gets bumped up to a 4 DCV? Rounding up now favours the PCs, right? Or does it mean he has a 3 DCV if attacked by a PC and a 4 if attacked by one of their opponents (maybe this is a three, or more, way battle).

 

Does it mean the Stunned PC has a 4 DCV if an opponent attacks him, but a 3 if an ally tries to use an Aid, a Heal, or just grab him for a quick escape?

 

"Halve the character's DCV and round up" seems like a very simple approach that is fair across the board.

[Netzilla]

Even with "no PVP allowed", I dislike the PC with DCV 7 having a 4 DCV if stunned while the adversary gets a DCV of 3.

 

Does that mean if, while he is Stunned, he is Mind Controlled to fight for the PC's, he gets bumped up to a 4 DCV? Rounding up now favours the PCs, right? Or does it mean he has a 3 DCV if attacked by a PC and a 4 if attacked by one of their opponents (maybe this is a three, or more, way battle).

 

Does it mean the Stunned PC has a 4 DCV if an opponent attacks him, but a 3 if an ally tries to use an Aid, a Heal, or just grab him for a quick escape?

 

"Halve the character's DCV and round up" seems like a very simple approach that is fair across the board.

 

Eh, none of my groups have run into these problems.  The 7 DCV rounding to 4 for PCs and 3 for foes is just one of those 'little extras' that makes the PCs better than everyone else.  Giving minor mechanical edges like this to the PCs is just how our group rolls.  Similarly, when there's an initiative tie (rare because we go in order of DEX, SPD then INT) between a PC and NPC, our house rule is that the PC always gets the edge.  The roll-off only happens in ties between 2 PCs or 2 NPCs.

 

With the mind-control scenario, this would count as PC v PC and so my group would round in the defender's favor (as noted in my previous post).

 

As for helping a Stunned PC, players can always choose to be 0 DCV vs someone rendering them aid.  If they choose not to do this (perhaps for fear of being attacked by someone else), then they round down (to 3) vs the assistance attempt and up (to 4) vs the attempt at harm.

 

Round in the PC's favor (round in defender's favor for PC vs PC) may sound complicated when written out, but I've never noticed it slow down play in practice.  As for it being 'unfair' to give the PCs this type of edge, this (and our init house rule) is small enough that I'm willing to accept any hurt feelings on the part of the NPCs.

[bigdamnhero]

I asked Steve. Seems like a pretty basic question to be generating such disagreement among us Old Timers.

[doccowie]

Bet you ten Scottish pounds that Steve's answer does not prevent disagreement among us old timers :- )